Is ENDA the end of religous freedom?

I honestly don't get fired up much over nondiscrimination legislation. Bad, I know, it's just that they don't have that deep resonating impact that court decisions, bills, and props over marriage/civil unions do. Of course in order to get progress we need to change social paradigms and ideas. So to make sure they don't lose any potential voters for their side these special interest groups will fight anything with the name nondiscrimination in it. It doesn't matter if they have the addendum in there or not that allows them to continue to discriminate in their own organizations. If that is kept quiet then they can get more masses to agree on their side if they just look at the bill's name.

I really hate these groups in particular. WBC is one thing (Btw if you want me to go egg their church sometime it's only an hour drive for me), but an organization that can get serious attention from people that actually have brains is dangerous for us. They preach that their purpose is to protect the country, protect our kids, protect the nuclear family. That's how they hook their followers. Always present the best of intentions. Sadly you can throw them off their horse, even with poorly defended arguments like mine.

So honestly why can't they question these things? Why can't the nuclear family be undermined? It isn't the only model that works. Then of course protecting the country is a ludicrous one for me (WBC booked us all for hell, pack your sunscreen). Protecting kids is a touchy subject for most, especially with adult topics relating to sex and gender. But human beings are sexual creatures, there is no getting around that. However kids don't think about sex nearly as often as adults think they do, until they get closer to puberty a lot of it just whizzes past their heads. If they're worried about kids asking why they have two mommies or two daddies then that can be problematic; I'm pretty confident though that if the subject is treated as if it isn't a big deal then the kids won't think in that way either. Then of course my favorite is people worried about kids growing up gay. Funny though, gays had to come from somewhere, straight homes (by raw numbers) promote more homosexuality than any other type of home. This is everything these groups seek to 'protect kids' from, but over protection from something can instill a fear around it. The sad part is prejudice grows in the mind around those we're too afraid to get to know, fueling the fear only continues the vicious cycle and that isn't what kids need. It won't be their fault either, they wouldn't possibly see that going on around them.

I spent a lot of time talking about kids. The reason is that these groups fight while hiding behind the backs of kids for cover in the political arena. Since kids can't vote and are easily victims in real crimes then it is the perfect setup for these wack-jobs. Set the kid up as the unknowing victim and use them as a shield to protect from the backlash of their stupid ideas.

I really wish the people behind these groups would see these things, step back and realize that their problems stem from an indoctrinated bias. Then they could possibly see how backwards they are to continuously promote fear of things that aren't maladies. If ENDA gets passed then their ability to spread fear through institutions is slightly diminished. ENDA signifies one step closer to defeating cultural bias, starting with (hopefully) well minded adults in the working world.

 

I looked into it a bit more and I think your missing the point, it's not the immediate effects that are being argued against but the possible future affects.

They want to stop it here before it can gain momentum so they do not have to fight it later.

 

They spread misinformation because the truth does not serve their cause. They know they are wrong so they have to lie to keep the public on their side.

 

Word.

Good riddance to bad garbage.

 

*points above* I edited my first post, ended up completely rewriting it. Enjoy.


I watched the video again. This time I payed more attention to how they completely circumvented stating anything that is actually in this bill and dramatized far-fetched effects it would have. The only one that got close to anything was the potential for the bill to change opinions. Well, the government can't legally make you think a certain way. The idea is that you don't bring it into a place of public work to use it to harass employees.

 

*as with most political matters of the day I have no stance, consider this another perspective and nothing more*


"possible" is key here, the thought that the government is encrouching on public business and other pieces of public matters(such as secondary education) could lead to them then encrouching on religious matters as well. Not the Churchs directly no, but parachurch orginization and Christian Colleges could soon find themselves at the will of the government.

It already happening in colleges, all the students at FCC have to have there finicial aid solely from the goverment, including student loans. If the government decided that FCC no longer meets there expectations they could stop funding for students whom attend.

ENDA, though suposes no limitations on NPOs and Churches, could possibly have rain over schools, I don't know what the Bill specificly says on the matter so I could not comment further.


It is in the end conservatives being conservative, trying to keep as little goverment control as possible in there lives.

 

As it did with black children, whats your point. Social issues often revolve around education. Also I believe the focus I mentioned was on colleges students, hardly protecting youthfull ears. It's not as if any of us hasn't seen worse in middle or highschool.

The goverment can cut funding away from students whom attend schools(and in doingso cut funding from schools) .that "discriminate" against LGBT community.students have to bare the brunt of college costs on there own then they will forgo college or attend one the goverment deems aprovable.



In the end your beliefs does not trump mine, Christian colleges arn't telling you that gays are inferior, there for deserve no education nor have no right to a job. They're saying that your lifestyle is counter to the beliefs of this orginization and there fore we will not hire you.


It would be like telling an authentic Italian Resteraunt that they would have to hire Latino or white servers an chefs to gaurd from discrimination. If not some discruntled irishman may sue you for discriminating against him because he's not Italian

 

Christianity holds back society as dose other religion. I'm sick of seeing crap like this. This type of story is pathetic in our time.

Its high time Religion sits down and takes a back seat. And stops trying to tell others how to live their lives.

 

(I cannot answer for Barnabas, or his beliefs, because he is part of a Christian group quite different from mine).

Satya: I guess the question is about whether one should be allowed to run organisations with specific focus according to religion or morals.

I'm sure that men can be part of women's lobby movements, as long as their goals are compatible. Similarly, muslims can teach at Christian schools, as long as they have respect for Christian beliefs. The same goes for morals, lifestyles, etc.

It would be offensive for a Christian, working in a Jewish or Muslim school to show up to work with a ham sandwich and prawn crackers. Similarly, it would be offensive for a male teacher to show up with his boyfriend to a Christian school.

Nevertheless, the question remains: should groups be allowed to exist which are united on the basis of race (american indian's association, for example), religion (christian schools, for example), sex (women's lobbies), sexual preference (gay bars, for example), etc.

If the answer is yes, then these groups' right to exist and maintain their character should be RESPECTED. ie. The law should permit groups to maintain a fundamental respect for their identity on their premises.

 

^This too but....

I think the question was why are these peps spreading all the hate. Because conservative christianity isn't so much a religion as it is a business that sells a product and that product is "the good 'ol days". So whenever the liburals pass some new hippy idea the conservatives roll out a new product that's the exact opposite, thus providing a nice alternative to immoral modern culture. Stop misinformation and the people will stop buying the product.

But the solution is not "gettin' rid of religion" just like "gettin' rid of Jews, or minorities, or homosexuals" is not a solution. It just makes you seem just as extreme as the extreme people you hate.

 

Rational indeed. This is how it should be.

...but damn I don't like it.

 

I agree with the above. Getting more in touch with what the real issue is, it's not Christianity. It's any group that has the mentality of enforcing their doctrines as one interest group (no matter how big they are) to disallow the right's of another group.

They're basically saying "I can't handle myself if x,y,z are allowed a,b,c so you have to make a law that keeps them from having it."

It is everyone's responsibility to behave themselves, not their right to disallow someone else something. That's what groups like FRC and a few others do as public outreach. Given their name I'd like to believe they do other stuff but even if they did produce research I'd be skeptical.

I'll invert this situation a little bit to prove my sincerity. I'm an atheist, always have been and for any foreseeable future of mine I probably always will be. I do not advocate for an atheist world. I'd like to see one that focuses it's beliefs on what is best for the society, whatever that system is. I get on the wrong foot with Christians from time to time because of our differences of opinion. But you will never see me do anything to disallow them their right to congregate.

Unless you're Fred Phelps. Then I'd have to do something. Not sure what yet, murder is too bland and a predictable fate for someone like him and would only make him a 'martyr' (although people honestly would either be happy or not care). Something more creative, inspiration will come if the situation arises. Maybe a picture of us standing side-by-side and then I 'Rule 34' it somehow. That seems appropriate.

 

Fixed.